[MD] The Greeks?

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Mary,

As the supposed resident elitist (though look how quickly 
people turn on DMB when he starts flashing around stuff 
he's learned in seminars), let me say that I don't think 
people need to study Greek culture before working with 
the MoQ.  I don't think there is any necessary list of 
priorities one needs to work through when they sit down 
and do philosophy (i.e. reflect on life).

But, when you ask, "Does it matter to the MoQ whether the 
Intellectual Level existed before or after Socrates?" I would 
want to reserve the right to say, "It might."  When 
philosophers become historical and start listing the times and 
dates they think something momentous occurred, it can be 
very illuminating to what, exactly, they think it is that 
occurred.  

For example, if one were so inclined to say "the Intellectual 
Level had its first defender in Socrates, and codifier in Plato," 
then you'd have an interestingly controversial set of old 
antagonisms to think through: especially, Sophist vs. Plato.  
And because of what Pirsig says about Plato and the 
Sophists, it gives you something to think about, about just 
what Pirsig is saying when he identifies the intellectual level 
as emerging in 5th century Greece in one book, but that 
Plato did something dangerous in the previous one.  It gives 
you something to work through, to tease apart just what 
Pirsig meant and what the consequences are of what he 
meant.  

Identifying the intellectual level with Socrates is often an 
old philosopher's trick to get other people to think that what 
they do (as footnotes to Plato) _is_ (rather than _was_) a 
culturally momentous task.  Thinking through whether you 
agree with that, or with the Sophists who thought 
themselves handmaindens rather than the avant-garde (and 
in what sense with whomever's side you take), can be 
important.  But one can probably get the hang of the MoQ 
without thinking about it, just as one can get the hang of 
modern physics without tangling with Francis Bacon's fight 
with the Ancients.

Mary said:
To discuss "whether or not reasoning is possible without 
subjects and objects" is to discuss SOL...

Matt:
Given the scope of what Steve was talking about, would it 
be fair to say that you've just identified SOL with 
"language-ability"?

Perhaps not, since you go on to imply that animals have 
SOL capabilities, but by that time you've gone beyond what 
I think Steve was willing to say.  Because, if you think that 
SOL is simply the power of "discrimination," I'm not sure why 
we need the fancy acronym, and especially the word "logic."  
Are you just talking about the ability to distinguish this from 
that?

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3